They mean the same thing.
Student or Learner
Could you please tell me about the difference between these two sentences?
1. I was amazed to hear that Chris had won first prize, and so had Tom.
2. I was amazed to hear that Chris won first prize, and so did Tom.
Also would you tell me about tense sequences?
I've read about it in books, but in practical English I see forms that none of those books mentioned.
Last edited by Reza_Rahimi; 06-Sep-2016 at 21:29.
They mean the same thing.
I'm probably going to take it in the teeth from the real grammar experts aboard, but I believe...
1. Past Perfect.
2. Past Simple.
I further think there is some disagreement in the halls of academia about how many tenses there are in English, but if you can get a grasp on these 12, you've got most possibilities covered.
There are four common forms: simple, continuous (or progressive), perfect, perfect continuous.
There are three common tenses: past, present, future. Four times three gives you twelve.
I sometimes see reference to "future in the past". And I see expansions on types too. However, if you get the basic 12 figured out, you will be ready for most English forms you are likely to encounter.
When the sequence of events is obvious from the context, we sometimes don't feel the need to use the past perfect. It is obvious that the speaker could hear of people winning a prize only after the winning, so the speaker in #2 has not pointed this up further.
There is effectively no difference in meaning between your two sentences.
There are strict rules in some languages about the sequence of tenses. Such a rule would dictate that a past perfect (or some equivalent form) must be used for a situation happening before a situation that has been reported with a past simple, as in #1 above and: I arrived after he had left.would you tell me about tense sequences?
We are less rigid about this in English when the sequence of events is clear, as in #2 above and: I arrived after he left.
For reasons already noted, the past perfect had won is used in #1 for Chris's earlier action. That decision having been made, the same tense must be used for Tom's action, though only the auxiliary had ( for had won) is used after so.
The decision to use the past simple won in #2 for Chris's earlier action having been made, the same tense must be used for Tom's action, though only the auxiliary did (for did win = won) is used after so.
English has no future tense, and 'progressive' is an aspect, not a tense
Seriously, I'm a native speaker, and highly competent. I've never heard of half of those things you talk about. I really question what purpose there is in knowing that stuff, except to be able to teach it to someone else for whom the only purpose in learning it is to be able to teach it....
It was you who presented a list of what you considered were the tenses, ChinaDan. You can't really object if somebody else presents what they think is a more helpful list.
I am not going to muddy the waters further by presenting my own full ideas here, but I will just note that I have found the idea of a future tense one that causes a lot of confusion for many learners.
ps. If you like to discuss this, let's do so in a fresh thread. Let's give Reza_Rahimi the chance to ask any follow-up questions here.
Reza_Rahimi is probably the latest punter to be left with their head swimming. He/she has made no response so far so I am moving the thread to a forum where fewer ESL students will find it and be left thinking 'Why bother learning English? It's much too complicated for me'.
But there is a present, there is a past, and there is a future. Our verbs change to suit which we wish to speak about. And sure, it gets complicated. If something happened in the past, I don't really care if we call the verb form "past tense" or a "detached modality"; either way, it is a phrase which serves as a handle for discussing something occurring in the past.
Knowing the "widely accepted" phraseology has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on learning how to use English correctly. I could say it's called a "backward pass" - it wouldn't matter; it's only a label so others understand that we are talking about an event in the past, and how it affects the verb form used.
Sarcasm; love it. And didn't you say "perfect" was a form, not a tense?And you've never heard of the perfect tense?
Actually, it was more like, "an inflectional system contrasting preterite" that I was referring to.